canarydan23

Either way, this is suicidal stuff from the England batsmen. 2-0 incoming.

What am I missing with that Root wicket? Looked like it clearly touched the ground on the replay but no one seems to think there was any controversy. Is there a rule that it can touch the floor as long as you've got control of it?

That's at least two bucketfuls of cognitive dissonance right there @littleyellowbirdie. Let's be honest, you're not really arguing in defence of Dean Smith, you're just struggling to deal with being proven emphatically wrong about him. I guess it's even more galling for you that some of us called it even before his appointment. Chin up, it happens, I thought Peter Grant was going to be fantastic, you didn't see me tying myself into all sorts of logical knots once it became obvious he was actually garbage.

My thoughts exactly.

I think it's a shame we couldn't convince Pukki to give it another year, I think Barnes could perform the number 10 role that Stiepermann did so well in our goal-laden first promotion season under Farke, potentially a little better.

There is a poster on the PinkUn talking absolute drivel in this thread. I won't name him as that would be highly unfair, let's just call him Popular Search Engine Droid. No one will have a clue who I'm talking about.

I think you're being kind about Brentford, both his permanent predecessor and his successor got Brentford into the playoffs, the latter achieving promotion. Don't think Smith got them higher than 9th.

SHEFF WEDS: Holy ****, he improved Leicester's results by 0.0072 points a game, let's get him! Whatever they've seen, it was a significant improvement in Leicester's results under him, was it?

What's he said?

Do they think he substantially improved Leicester's results?!

Maybe football is different, but there is a legal principle in contract law called res inter alios acta, basically meaning a matter between others is not the business of any another. Norwich or Spurs wouldn't be under any obligation to even tell Coventry the fee. My understanding is sketchy and restricted to the world of insurance, maybe the existence of a clause in the Norwich/Coventry deal infers contractual rights on them, but in general it would be a difficult thing to enforce.

There were also reviews saying Elton's performance was one of the best ever headline acts (NME). Literally no one has said that, or would say that, about Arctic Monkeys' set.

Not sure but I would imagine they were settled up when Leicester bought him.

Substantial improvement in their results?! Brendan Rogers managed 0.89 points per game (25 points in 28), Dean Smith managed 0.9 points per game (9 points in 10). And 40% of Dean Smith's fixtures were home times against teams 13th and lower and he had an away tie against one of only two teams below them in the table. Do you really think fair-minded people would recognise a 0.0072 PPG improvement as "a substantial improvement in their results"?! Absolutely mental.

That's exactly what it is. The logic these people are having to deploy to defend Webber these days should really tell them something. I think he's already covered Webber with; "Fame made me balloon coz my ego inflated".

I know right. It's such a shame there isn't anything in between meaningless media-trained platitudes and throwing your players and supporters under the bus.

I wonder how quickly someone could grasp the concept of making the point that solid performance data doesn't give you any insight into the ability of a player to settle without being overtly derogatory about an existing player and potentially devaluing an asset? Seems a pretty simple thing to do, doesn't it?

Unless you're telling me that he didn't say that they signed a player who couldn't take on information and learn anything, before making it quite obvious who that player was, then I don't need the context to know that's an idiotic thing for a SD to say about an existing, contracted player. Idiotic. But for Webber, not in the tiniest bit surprising.

I didn't watch Elton John, but are you saying I should believe the negative internet reviews of his performance but ignore the myriad negative reviews of the Arctic Monkeys? That said, I don't need to read the reviews of the latter, I watched them and thought it was dreadful. And it appears I was far from alone in reaching that conclusion.

Here was me thinking it was a thread about comments Webber made on a podcast. Comments in which he throws an existing, contracted player under the bus. Stick a kernel in a microwave and there's only one thing it can do. We will just add it to fans, the structure, other team's money, Farke and all the other stuff Webber wants us to believe are to blame for his abject failures in the last couple of years. The guy needs to be given a spade and so e daffodil bulbs urgently.

Have you seen what's written across the Internet about the Arctic Monkeys performance? You'll ignore that, no doubt.

He won't be here because he's just another dud signed by a busted flush of a Sporting Director whose narcissism means he has to find something else to justify his failings. He's no different to me playing pool on my lunch hour. If I miss a straightforward cut to the middle it's because the jaw played funny. Webber signs crap and it's because of some unforeseeable factor that was absolutely not his fault. The reality is, I'm just **** at pool.

Why not though? With all the physical data looking so awesome and him now speaking great English? Why wouldn't he be here?

Oh great, in that case he'll be amazing for us this season then what with his amazing physical data and the fact that it was only his inability to take on information that was holding him back. Christ on a bike. Maybe stop wondering and start thinking?

Not likely. The lad was kind enough to turn up on a Saturday evening to a grassroots girls football club presentation evening in Norwich a couple of months ago. His English is fine. He's either a bit dense or Webber is a massive bullsh*tter.